Pingu Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 just to kick this one off I thought I would post what the act is. from :http://www.therefuge.org.uk/new/articles/lawtalk.html 1) This section applies to - (a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier; (b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and © any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose. (2) No person shall - (a) breed, or breed from, a dog to which this section applies; (b) sell or exchange such a dog or offer, advertise or expose such a dog for sale or exchange © make or offer to make a gift of such a dog or advertise or expose such a dog as a gift; (d) allow such a dog of which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead; or (e) abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner or for the time being in charge of such a dog, allow it to stray. Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place - (a) the owner; and (b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection. (2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it. (3) If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there - (a) it injures any person; or (b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so, he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection. This law is very scary. Punishments Owner Fine £5,000 (unlimited if it goes to crown court) and/or up to 6 months (2 yrs if goes to crown court) and costs with possibility of compensation too. Dog Destruction order or control order. Burden of proof is very much on the owner to show that the dog is not a danger. So get a GOOD behaviourist etc etc.(and an even better lawyer). It is criminal law and if you lose you will end up with a criminal record. If you are charged under this act get a GOOD solicitor who knows canine law. Then try to get the charge changed to the dogs act of 1871. Main points: • Owner or person in charge – this is the person who the case is brought against, it could be both if the court feels that they both had a contributory role. If the dog is in the care of boarding kennels when the offence took place then it is likely that the kennels will be charged. • It is the whole situation that is considered not just the incident. note not if the dog is dangerous but acted in a dangerous manner at the time of the offence • There is no mention that the dog is dangerous… just that it was dangerously out of control. So a dog could be as good as gold.. be dangerously out of control and then good as gold again to fall foul. (Its important to note the difference here between this and the 1871 act…under the 1871 act its “is the DOG dangerous?†here its “was the dog dangerously out of control†– a VERY different kettle of fish) • A dog is considered dangerously out of control for the purposes of this act if “in the opinion of a reasonable person the dog will cause injury to a person.†This bit is very important… the dog doesn’t have to actually injure someone, just will cause injury to a PERSON… not another animal. This law deals strictly with people. Its also important to note that its not sufficient for the person to think that the dog may cause injury they must think that it will cause injury. So barking = may… lunging = will. • If a dog bites then the court will nearly always assume the it will do so again • If a dog bites or scratches then its considered an aggravated offence and is even more serious. • Dog can be seized. This makes showing not a danger really hard as you can’t do any behavioural work with the dog and the stress of kennels wont help. Fortunately outside of London seizure orders are not common. • No Time limit to go to court – there are cases of dogs dying of old age before a case gets to court as the police don’t see it as a priority. DON’T hassle them to move more quickly, in practice this is likely to have the opposite effect… • Things have to occur in a public place. This does not include your house but does include your car if it is parked in a public place e.g. on the road, in Asdas car park. So then…you could have a perfectly well adjusted dog that has 15 seconds of madness and after that is perfect again.. You could still fall foul of this act. Thankfully most authorities use the 1871 act unless it’s a really nasty case. re pitbull type... i was quite shocked at the last Trevor Cooper talk to find out that prety much any dog (except a merle) could be defined as a pit bull under the current guidelines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 yes a labrador was tested in the early days after the act was introduced for apbt attributes and scored around ninety points out of a possible 100 for being of the type Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/do...dogsleaflet.pdf I thought this link might be interesting - it's the leaflet describing each "type" that is banned (Defra). The descriptions are so vague that they can easily be read into wrongly. Can someone tell me if they have to answer "yes" to every characteristic on those lists? Or can a dog have say 80 or 90% of the characteristics and still be seen as of the "type"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kola Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/do...dogsleaflet.pdf I thought this link might be interesting - it's the leaflet describing each "type" that is banned (Defra). The descriptions are so vague that they can easily be read into wrongly. Can someone tell me if they have to answer "yes" to every characteristic on those lists? Or can a dog have say 80 or 90% of the characteristics and still be seen as of the "type"? Your dog doesn't have to answer yes to every point, if you end up in court the important point is that you go in 'guilty' - the onus of proof is reversed, you are guilty until proven innocent, an allegation only has to be made and it is up to you to prove that your dog is not of the 'type', when the Act was originally drafted they thought there might be difficulty in deciding what is and is not not a prohibited dog, so they reversed the burden of proof, the Amendment of 1997 did not change this point. Amanda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted January 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 amanda - as you seem to have the good contacts (and others too) we seriously need to start planning to do something as from stuff I have heard today (you may be getting a phone call from somone I spoke to earlier) its not looking good. The KC and other high profile organisations need to goaded into speaking out and doing somethin to protect our dogs. only public pressure will prevent the current situation becoming much much worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 But how? What, specifically, is being proposed, and how can we voice an opinion on it? I just read through the comments on that Guardian news story, and I now feel physically sick, but I don't really know how as an ordinary dog owner, I can contribute to this debate or make a difference. Pingu, I get the impression you feel more people should be contributing on this, but I think most of us are concerned, but at the moment it all seems a bit vague and confusing. I deeply oppose the idea that dogs should be kept on the lead in all public spaces, or that they should all be muzzled in public, and I can't really see why anyone thinks that the answer to someone being killed by an illegally-owned pit bull is to make more laws. If she'd been killed by a labrador, I can at least understand the logic of adding anti-lab legislation, if not agree with it, but it appears that the dog that killed this time was of a breed that is already banned? There is already a law on pit bulls, and I'm fairly sure that setting dogs of any breed on small children is not something we need extra legislation to make illegal. Clearly all the laws he'd already broken had bugger-all effect on the owner of this dog, or his family - so why make more laws to be ignored by the same people? The more laws you make, the more people simply can't keep up with them, and end up getting criminalised. If someone brings in a law to say that all dogs must be on leads at all times in the UK, I'm planning to become a member of the criminal classes myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted January 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 I cant say anything specific at thge moment as it will possibly get someone into trouble but there are moves to add more breeds to the list of prescribed breeds (section 1 of the dda) - some of the breeds you may expect to see some you wont. The way this may happen is sneaky yet, I have been told, quite legal. plus some other stuff that will restrict where you can go with your dogs and what you can do when you get there whats needed at the moment is for dog owners to be made aware that its not justthe brees that have hit the headlines taht are going to be affected and to support owners of breeds that are in the limeligght in any actions taken. sadly its going to need one of the big organisations to stand up and speak for it to be really noticed but we all need tpo be prepared to stand up and be counted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kola Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 sadly its going to need one of the big organisations to stand up and speak for it to be really noticed but we all need tpo be prepared to stand up and be counted it has to be the Dogs Trust and/or kennel Club who stand up as they are powerful enough to be heard and taken notice of, but every one must also do their bit, just difficult as we don't know what is going to happen next, we are flat out just answering calls from worried people, everyone is clambering for advice, i've got local people near me asking if their dogs are 'types' today, panic and misinformation is spreading, The Kennel Club statement http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/825 Amanda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted January 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 The Kennel Club statement http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/825 Amanda for the KC thats a quite strongly worded statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts